peterstorm1985

I'm going to be really boring here (moi?) but what exactly is causing the annoyance? Is it a) lack of sanitary facilities resulting in some nasty deposits somewhere? If so, contact environmental health b) constant running of the engine causing pollution. If so, contact environmental health c) loud music being played into the small hours. If so, contact noise team. d) constant shouting, fights, arguing in the street or other antisocial behaviour. If so, contact police. e) one less car parking space. If so, get a grip. If they're managing to avoid paying council tax by moving on a regular basis, then it is annoying but if they aren't causing any major problems then I think I'd simply say hello, and ask them what they're up to. With all the burglaries taking place recently - as long as they are not the perpetrators - then they may be quite useful in keeping guard.

The contract is for 7 working hours so that's what it should say, but it must be absolutely clear for both parties otherwise you could come unstuck. If you give the start and finish times and expressly state that a one hour break is to be taken - basically as you have written above - then that will be fine.

Karenina75 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > .... Dear Me Me > Me, I have signed the petition and I think that it > is important to keep outside space for the local > children, dog walkers, football players, joggers > and all whom visit for some time outside and away > from busy modern life. I think that your comment > regarding cremation is in very bad taste and > disrespectful. Why do you think it is disrespectful to mention cremation in this way? Surely it's the very fact that people continue to want burials rather than cremations that causes the pressure to find space. Perhaps it is time for a greater debate on how we deal with death. As the population increases there will never be the option of simply reusing grave sites after a specified period (unless that time is very short). I would much prefer to keep the open space for use by the community but unless we ban burials then land has to be found somewhere. Where would you suggest?

Dorothy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It was ?2.67 Ocado, ?4.25 locally. Not a food > item. It would be interesting to know what it was exactly. Local shops need to make a profit from a small amount of shelf space so a regular selling, or physically small, item won't need as much profit as something large or one that may sit on the shelves for months. I'm afraid we've got so used to the one-stop shop idea that the local shops sometimes feel pressured into keeping products on the shelves that aren't frequent sellers so they have to add a higher margin to account for that. But if it's something you might buy often, it may be worth asking the shopkeeper why it was so much - it's always possible that it was incorrectly priced or their supplier is overcharging.

Dell online for me too - you only get what you want and after 7 years trouble free use, adding extra memory as increased demands required was dead easy (although small fingers useful). Useful help pages written by intelligent humans. Only time I've ever needed support they were really helpful (especially as the problem wasn't their kit but a cheap printer I'd bought.)

TJ Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- >.. According to the insurance company, less than 3% > of burglaries are in houses with alarms. > Draw your own conclusions. Is this a national statistic or local, do you know? I'd be interested to know how many houses actually have alarms, as that's obviously relevant when drawing a conclusion. And is it actually the alarm that deters them or all the other precautions that someone who pays for an alarm will probably take? If there are two identical houses with identical high end electrical goods on display through the window then the one without the alarm is more vulnerable but in some of the less busy streets in ED an alarm can go ignored for a long time during the day, especially when it's has been a regular accidental occurrence. My money's on multiple locks and keeping everything out of visible temptation.

ilondoner Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there anything you can do about the number of > betting shops in Peckham/East Dulwich. I counted > at least 10 between Peckham Rye and Camberwell. I > was under the impression that they had to apply > for a special license? Who says they haven't all got the appropriate licences?

In the wider construction industry it is commonplace for contractors to be paid on a monthly basis for works done to that date (measured against an agreed schedule), rather than a single cheque at the end. But in the first month there is often a payment for "set up costs" which may include monies for materials. The most important thing for any purchaser is to have a written contract that details what monies are to be paid when and for what. However, the difficulty for the home owner is being able to judge what part of the works carry what costs and ensuring that they don't pay the most money for the least expensive parts of the work. Unless you are confident reading drawings and specifications then it's a good idea to get an independent professional to have a watching brief.

I won't be joining this march simply because I don't see the point in making a noisy (glad I don't live there) complaint, without offering a realistic solution. Southwark have to cut services because they don't have enough money. It's that simple. Unisons's "sack wasteful consultants as well the bottomless pit of private contractors. No privatization, bring services back in-house" is easily said, but they provide no evidence of waste that could be cut out (I don't doubt there is some, but consultants are most commonly used to do short term specialist work that would otherwise need a member of staff that would be similarly expensive due to their under-utilisation), or calculations of how the financial savings can actually be achieved. And let's not forget that all those consultants and private contractors are people too; some of them lowly paid. They just don't happen to be paying any union dues to Unison. The only real way to ensure there are no cuts would be to massively increase council tax. March for that anyone?

You are of course right Scribe, although I don't think we need to resort to implements; millions of people across the world don't use toilet paper, just a wash cloth and water. But we have to start somewhere, and junk mail is an inexcusable waste of resources.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > Who exactly has pissed on so many chips that such > prattle passes for thinking Peter? On the door of > every benefits office indeed... You are very choosy in what you read, and how you read it, aren't you? I see nothing wrong in having a reminder of the balance of obligations and rights on every benefits office door; everyone who knows they've met their obligations can pass through confident they have a right to do so. Perhaps you think that I have never passed through the door of a benefits office; I can assure you that I have. And on the other side I found a reasonable percentage who had, like me, lost their jobs due to recession, or had other perfectly good reasons for seeking support from the state. But I also saw far too many who were abusive to the staff, who sat their young and able bottoms on the only chairs while less able stood. I've sat in 'back to work' discussion groups and heard physically fit people refuse to even contemplate doing voluntary work to enhance their CVs and moan that they're not being handed jobs on a plate. If there are people who aren't prepared to 'do their bit' then they need to be told that society (big, small, whatever) expects more of them.

Scribe - toilet paper has a purpose; the vast majority of junk mail doesn't. (Now, if they printed it on softer paper....)

Unless you are a family of four who have the heating/lights on all day it's really hard to make the savings that are so often quoted. I did once sit down and do all the sums using my previous year's usage (it took a weekend!) and worked out that the highest saving I could get wouldn't have covered my time. So I became a sloth and decided to glory in the idea that I'd enjoy the peace that comes from letting others chase the lowest price and hope that my own supplier would attempt to compete. I may be a little poorer but my blood pressure is much lower.

PeckhamRose Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People who put junk mail in your door do not read > or can not read signs saying no junk mail. > Collect it up then send it to the NF courtesy of > their freepost address which is > > British Heritage > FREEPOST > That's all you need to write. This is the most wonderful suggestion I've ever heard on this forum; a way of venting my frustration and doing good at the same time.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > I tied in vain to get the multiple quote increased > from ?5,000 to ?10k or ?20k. Lots of reasons given > for not increasing it. But the transaction costs > of 3 or more quotes for tiny work and projects > means the council often looks exceptionally poor > value. We have a local scheme to traffic calm with > humps Matham, Chesterfield and Ashbourne Groves. > The actual humps cost ?11,000 but the overheads > mean it will actually cost ?37,000. So many > examples where Southwark Council are poor value > for money. > Any scheme requires plans to be drawn up, a brief and specification to be written, and a contract document (even if it's just a completed purchase order with standard terms and condition), even if only one company provides a quote. The additional costs of 2 more quotes should only be of major significance if they are new suppliers. If the council has a list of preferred contractors (with pre-agreed standard rates for common work items), who have standing documents for quality, health and safety etc, there should not be a significant additional cost. Compare that to the potential fraud and inefficiency that will be created by a one quote system and you'll be paying for a team of auditors that won't appear in the project costs but add a massive overhead. ?37K project costs (equivalent to a mid level surveyor full time for 6 month inc overhead) for a scheme of ?11k sounds high but I would like to see a breakdown of what those costs were to be able to judge. For example, did that cost include the public consultation? How much of it was actually for comparison of the quotes? Sending out for quotations to 3 companies rather than 2 is only a matter of adding 2 more email addresses to the circulation (OK allow 4 extra addresses in case some suppliers refuse to quote). And then the time to read them, which isn't going to be long for a scheme for humps! It sounds to me that there is some other problem and the 3 quote system may simply be an excuse. I would add though that I think that value for money wise we do pretty well in Southwark. Not perfect but no public institution ever is with the inevitable short term decision making required by regular political change.

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Yeah, peterstorm is being a bit impractical. Perhaps my view on the value of car clubs is affected by the fact that there is nothing on god's earth that could entice me to Bluewater. > > Addressing these issues involves subtle messages > ............that girls should be attracted > to boys with a social conscience, ........ and that ostentatious > displays of wealth are a sign of weakness not > strength. > If you could get these messages across to the target audience you suggest you would easily resolve a lot more social ills than unnecessary car ownership.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- There's no such thing as > entitlement, unless someone has first met an > obligation." I'd like to see this sentence on the door of every benefits and housing office. [Perhaps I'd soften it by adding "or if you've made every reasonable effort to contribute to society" as clearly there are some (many) who need support due to circumstances over which they have no control]. Reliance on the state with no effort is something that has become prevalent in bigger cities because it's so easy to assume that the anonymous 'they' will sort things out but expect nothing in return. This is why I don't understand the use of the word 'Big' in Big Society. In smaller communities there is much more self help as the local authority cannot provide the same level of services to a population spread over much greater areas. So local people help local people. There is less of the 'they should sort it' because 'they' are people you know, and the chances are that 'they' will be at your door asking you to help with running someone to the doctor, or clearing the snow off the path to the church. I would understand it more - and I think others would too - if it was changed to something like the considerate/caring/neighbourhood society.

Bit mean there Huguenot. There's no hint in Sue's post of a complaint - she simply said that she hadn't been aware of any notification. Not everyone is able to attend community meetings due to the time of day that they are held.

Unfortunately a lot of his 'failings' are simply a breach of contract, so it's civil not criminal and the home owners would need to sue him. The remedy there is financial but if he's been spending every penny he's received there may be no point. Certain matters though, e.g. falsification of documents that have safety implications, and if did any of those electrics himself (more difficult if he hired a 'tradesman' - he didn't look like a man to get his hands dirty himself) and, potentially, leaving the house in a dangerous state may be criminal (although if they 'chose' to occupy the house knowing it wasn't finished that may not work). Fortunately, this programme is quite good at bringing cowboy builders to the court room. It may be worth anyone who can give witness evidence of his work, or claims of professional status, contacting the programme to offer assistance.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I think car clubs probably work well for longer > distances. Try getting a taxi to somewhere 30-40 > miles out of London and back, it would probably > cost something like ?150. Good point re cost of taxis for longer distances, but on the very odd occasion that I might need a car for a longer distance (although if I possibly could I'd use the train - I like reading when I'm travelling) I'd just hire a car from a car hire company. carclubresearch There does seem to be an awful lot of use of the word 'implies' in the survey report you gave a link to. That makes me a little suspicious. And, forgive me if it's in there and I missed it, but is there any research into any members who leave car clubs? I wonder if a few previous non-owners of cars try car club and then decide what a nice idea it is to have convenient access to a car and go off and buy one. This isn't cynicism; I just like to see the complete picture.

carclubresearch Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks for answering Louisiana. Yes I don't really > understand about needing the car to go to > supermarkets. If I am doing a big shop and not > using online ordering and deliveries I get a taxi > - it works out much cheaper than running a car! You've just mentioned the reason why I don't understand the need for car clubs. Why not just get a taxi? Yes, I know it may cost a little more (I don't know the cost of car club cars) but they come to your house so it's more convenient and there is no need to have special parking bays set aside.

Shankley Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > and consequently, if an L shaped loft conversion > was NOT being being built on a new 2 story > extension but the main original building, then it > would only need to satisfy Class B . Therefore not > all L shaped loft convesions need to comply with > Class A & B ??? I don't agree with this statement. Whilst it is much clearer in the guidance notes that a new 2 storey extension would need to comply with Class A, I can find nothing in the guidance notes (or the legislation itself) to say that you can ignore any classes. I note also that the term used in the legislation is the 'enlarged part', rather than simply the 'enlargement', or the 'extension', and there is no different treatment for an additional storey or a new extension from ground up. Of course, as said already, if all the eaves of the existing building are unchanged - which would be the case if there was sufficient head height in the return - then Class A would not be breached, as it can only apply to a change. There are conditions to use similar materials but I can't see any way that carrying slates/tiles down the side will suddenly make a wall gain roof status as Shankley seems to be suggesting (although it's an amusing idea). I'm signing out of this discussion now but here's a link to the relevant bit of the legislation. Legislation TO explain the amendments made at this date you may also find this interesting Parliamentary paper

Huguenot Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Again, to put things in perspective... > > Around 21,000 ships cross this particular stretch > of water every year, and only 49 were pirated last > year. > So true. There is a view that the pirates realise that as long as their activity is kept to a level where the insurance companies are prepared to provide policies then the whole business will carry on with only minimal intervention from any military (Most governments won't spend serious money on something unless it affects their economy or endangers the lives of significant numbers of their citizens). When a gang of pirates attack a commercial ship, but fail to gain control, they don't want to come back from the sea empty handed so they attack a vessel that's not inherently valuable (not insured - either pleasure craft or small fishing boat) but that doesn't follow their business model which is clearly targeted at where the money is.

I think what seems to be confusing some is the idea that you can consider just one of the Classes and not the others. There is more than one hurdle to cross. Like a lot of legislation it is made up of parts, each of which needs to be addressed. The reason that the law is written in this way is so that it can be applied to a wider variety of circumstances. Consequently, a detached house with exactly the same dimensions (but where all parts of the building are more than 2 metres from a boundary) would pass class B - requirements for extensions and alterations to roofs (assuming the existing roof height does not need to be increased) and also Class A -extensions to the dwelling house. But where the building is a terrace or semi detached, and the side return has a low roof that would need to be lifted, the side return is not 2 metres from the boundary so gets caught out by class A. It doesn't matter that the main roof is less than 2m from the boundary because the eaves* level remains unchanged. (these permitted development rules only apply to changes). There will be some side return extensions that are legal simply because the roof of the original building was already at the right height (probably the same as the main roof) so no changes to the eaves were necessary. In essence, you cannot choose to comply with Class B and ignore Class A as the latter applies to the whole dwellinghouse and that includes the roof. *Just in case anyone doesn't realise, the eaves are the lowest part of the roof than project over the side of the building - see pictures in the guidance notes showing where the existing eaves remain intact where the roof height is already sufficient.

DJKillaQueen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Not enough military vessels to do it unfortunately > and patroling the sea is not an easy thing to do. > It would be far more effective if commercial > shipping companies hired armed security guards on > their vessels. A number of commercial vessels are carrying armed security guards although this is not encouraged by many insurance companies; there is a clear indication of an escalation of violence at the time of attack and it does not guarantee that the attack will fail as the pirates simply take more military equipment with them. (There are some serious discussion papers on the Internet regarding legalities and increased insurance risk). Although it does seem that flying a Russian flag helps to protect a ship - but only while there are others apparently unprotected. Smaller pleasure cruise vessels > should perhaps avoid the area altogether. From what I've read they generally do but there are a number of yachts that have 'got caught' in The Indian Ocean, i.e arrived 2-3 years ago when the risk area was much smaller, intending to potter around the 'safe' bits, put off leaving when things got a bit scary and now they can't get out. The risk area now stretches all the way across to the beaches of India, and South to all the tourist islands, and now to Madagascar and the Tanzanian coast. And the > Somalian government could do more than it > currently does to police it's own coastline of > course. There is no government in the region where most of the attacks are sponsored. Even in Mogadishu members of the TFG don't go outside the presidential palace without military escort and the level of funding they receive from international sources may seem large but they haven't sorted out the daily killings in Mogadishu yet so I doubt they'll get to the rest of the country any time soon.